U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2019, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Seattle
2,396 posts, read 506,465 times
Reputation: 2212

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
"Absolute nothing" means "absolute nothing."

If the Big Bang was the result of some quantum fizzo or the collision of two or more alternate dimensions or the belch of the cosmic turtle ... fine. But where did the quantum fizzo and the alternate dimensions and the cosmic turtle come from?

Quantum physics may be able to push "the beginning" beyond the Big Bang. But it still fails to answer the Ultimate Question: What was the First Cause?
Was there a first cause? Or has the multiverse always existed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2019, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Maine
17,139 posts, read 21,242,473 times
Reputation: 19949
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
Was there a first cause? Or has the multiverse always existed?
That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Seattle
2,396 posts, read 506,465 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
Well I was responding to your non-scientific query, so there you go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 01:58 PM
 
22,794 posts, read 17,268,975 times
Reputation: 9512
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
It depends on what you consider "absolute nothing". There's nothing in quantum mechanics that precludes an entire expanding universe popping into existence out of a vacuum.
I'm trying to be clear about what I mean by 'absolute nothing.' When I say absolute nothing, I mean not even the existence of zero point energy. That vacuum energy is something. I know that negative energy cancels out positive energy leaving net zero, but in reality that vacuum energy is the something that has to have always existed. If those random quantum fluctuations hadn't always been occurring, then there is no way the universe could have popped into existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Seattle
2,396 posts, read 506,465 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I'm trying to be clear about what I mean by 'absolute nothing.' When I say absolute nothing, I mean not even the existence of zero point energy. That vacuum energy is something. I know that negative energy cancels out positive energy leaving net zero, but in reality that vacuum energy is the something that has to have always existed. If those random quantum fluctuations hadn't always been occurring, then there is no way the universe could have popped into existence.
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 06:01 PM
 
22,794 posts, read 17,268,975 times
Reputation: 9512
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
Then we're in agreement that something has always existed. While there are physicists who don't agree with the idea of a multiverse, I think it's reasonable to assume the existence, or at least the possible existence of other universes. I'll check into that book you mentioned. I'm thinking of getting Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing. I've listened to him lecture on it on YouTube.


The Science of Empty Space looks good. I'll see if I can get it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Last edited by Mike555; 08-02-2019 at 06:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 08:01 PM
 
22,794 posts, read 17,268,975 times
Reputation: 9512
Physicist Brian Greene always gives an exciting talk. In this TED talk from 2012 he gives a talk which is pertinent to this thread.

Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? | Brian Greene


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf7BXwVeyWw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 11:02 PM
 
4,264 posts, read 8,019,405 times
Reputation: 6075
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
There's an excellent book on the subject: 'Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space' by Henning Genz. He looked back at the ancient Greek philosophers, who argued you couldn't have an absolute emptiness. There has to be something there for phenomenon like light and other particles to travel through it. I'm not even clear what absolute emptiness would mean; does it have dimension or time? I'm not sure it would, so how can it be said to even exist? It's a contradiction. Ergo, I argue that the multiverse has always existed, at least from our more limited perspective of linear time, and that it must always exist.
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.

So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.

For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.

I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.

Last edited by davidt1; 08-04-2019 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2019, 03:50 PM
 
22,794 posts, read 17,268,975 times
Reputation: 9512
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.

So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.

For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.

I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.
Physicists come up with models in an attempt explain something. Not to explain away. Some models actually predict a multiverse as a logical result of the theory. The eternal inflation model originated by physicist Alan Guth logically predicts an endless succession of 'big bang' events resulting in ever increasing numbers of universes.

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-u...ultiverse.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2019, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Seattle
2,396 posts, read 506,465 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
There is no solid evidence that a multiverse exists. It came about because some scientists needed some thing to explain away why they can't explain something. For example, some say life exists in our universe because it is just one of many in a multiverse. It's just a roll of dice in a multiverse, they say.

So you think the multiverse has always existed. I respect that. But that sounds similar to religious people saying god has always existed.

For the record I am not a religious person. I like to think I am open-minded and always seek the truth. So far, neither science nor religion has given me a satisfactory answer. I will say this, I am always in awe of the symmetry and beauty of the universe. The motion of planets, the precise strength of gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism, etc. are so predictable that humans can construct equations to describe them.

I am alive because these things work the way they do. For that I am grateful, regardless of whether these things are the result of some design or they are the products of some meaningless random cosmic event that happened billions of years ago.

Well I said in the limited context of our Universe's linear time. There's no guarantee that the origin point of our Universe had linear time, so saying "forever" may actually be meaningless. For all we know it existed in some type of infinite quantum loop outside of time. But fair enough. Trying to prove the existence of God has thus far proven fruitless; demonstrating that other Universes exist may still be feasible. If another Universe is discovered, may we call it a Multiverse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top